News

School given permission for new pitch

A school has been given the go ahead to build a new artificial sports pitch at the second time of asking.

Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning committee has granted Dorothy Stringer High School permission for a new all-weather pitch at their meeting this afternoon in line with following council officials’ advice.

The school’s bid for permission for the pitch in December at their Loder Road site in Brighton was rejected in December.

The new plans include a smaller 86m by 56m artificial as well as perimeter fencing up to 2m high, 12m tall floodlights and a storage container.

This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.

This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.tykemison

tykemison wrote:
This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.

It's only a footie pitch outside a school, not a nuclear powerplant. I've got the Waste Transfer Facility at the bottom of my garden in a densely populated area and the council passed that one!

[quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote:
This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.[/p][/quote]It's only a footie pitch outside a school, not a nuclear powerplant. I've got the Waste Transfer Facility at the bottom of my garden in a densely populated area and the council passed that one!s&k

tykemison wrote: This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.

It's only a footie pitch outside a school, not a nuclear powerplant. I've got the Waste Transfer Facility at the bottom of my garden in a densely populated area and the council passed that one!

Fair point s&k!! Its just these buffoons on the"paid off committee"have no morals and have total disdain for everyone but the odious developers (ridiculous name should be destructors) who line their pockets.i believe this to be an illegal act and demand this whole shambles is looked into.

[quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote: This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.[/p][/quote]It's only a footie pitch outside a school, not a nuclear powerplant. I've got the Waste Transfer Facility at the bottom of my garden in a densely populated area and the council passed that one![/p][/quote]Fair point s&k!! Its just these buffoons on the"paid off committee"have no morals and have total disdain for everyone but the odious developers (ridiculous name should be destructors) who line their pockets.i believe this to be an illegal act and demand this whole shambles is looked into.tykemison

The new plans include a smaller 86m by 56m artificial as well as perimeter fencing up to 2m high, 12m tall floodlights and a storage container.
WOW sounds like the start of some jail or something
Dorothy Stringer High School with 2 metre high fencing to protect them or keep the kids in "playing on a bit of artificial field " could they just not have improved the drainage of the current ground and then made it level and grassed over it BINGO green in our green run counsel who did not think of that . so how many trees are they removing btw that was not covered in the article

The new plans include a smaller 86m by 56m artificial as well as perimeter fencing up to 2m high, 12m tall floodlights and a storage container.
WOW sounds like the start of some jail or something
Dorothy Stringer High School with 2 metre high fencing to protect them or keep the kids in "playing on a bit of artificial field " could they just not have improved the drainage of the current ground and then made it level and grassed over it BINGO green in our green run counsel who did not think of that . so how many trees are they removing btw that was not covered in the articleMr chock

tykemison wrote: This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.

It's only a footie pitch outside a school, not a nuclear powerplant. I've got the Waste Transfer Facility at the bottom of my garden in a densely populated area and the council passed that one!

Fair point s&amp;k!! Its just these buffoons on the&quot;paid off committee"have no morals and have total disdain for everyone but the odious developers (ridiculous name should be destructors) who line their pockets.i believe this to be an illegal act and demand this whole shambles is looked into.

I'm intrigued where your "facts" are coming from ? The original proposal was poor as it lost mature trees - that has now been resolved and the new plans look reasonable. As an ex-Stringer pupil it has amazed me it's taken this long to deal with the area that was an unusable mud bath for a majority of the year.

[quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote: This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.[/p][/quote]It's only a footie pitch outside a school, not a nuclear powerplant. I've got the Waste Transfer Facility at the bottom of my garden in a densely populated area and the council passed that one![/p][/quote]Fair point s&k!! Its just these buffoons on the"paid off committee"have no morals and have total disdain for everyone but the odious developers (ridiculous name should be destructors) who line their pockets.i believe this to be an illegal act and demand this whole shambles is looked into.[/p][/quote]I'm intrigued where your "facts" are coming from ? The original proposal was poor as it lost mature trees - that has now been resolved and the new plans look reasonable. As an ex-Stringer pupil it has amazed me it's taken this long to deal with the area that was an unusable mud bath for a majority of the year.Fight_Back

It appears that things have not been well-handled, at the very least by the Council. This was a follow-up statement that the Local Action Team sent round yesterday, in response to the Planning Officer’s report. My question though is why is there is a private school operating WITHIN Stringer in school hours, using their facilities when we can't our children in, because the Council say it's full??? Who is benefitting from this?

1. Information withheld until after the comment period has elapsed. The Design & Access statement, which is clearly a key document, is dated 28th February 2014, and presumably has been in the Applicant’s possession since early March – ie for over two months. However, it has not been posted on the planning website until 6th May – just six working days before this application is scheduled to be heard. This is totally unacceptable, denying local residents the opportunity to study this document and have their views taken into account. Design and access are key areas of concern to local people living near the site.

2. Further unacceptably late submission of documents. Three other documents relating to the noise issue were also not posted until this very late stage as well. This is a major planning application.

3. Failure to carry out surveys over the course of two years. The Applicant states that they have been working on this proposal for two years, and make much of their eco-credentials. Yet they have still not provided satisfactory surveys. The East Sussex County Ecologist once again states: “The level of ecological surveys submitted is not sufficient to inform mitigation, compensation and enhancement. A further biodiversity report is required to assess the likely impacts of the scheme.”

5. Misinterpretation of key information submitted in objections. “The use of the pitch by Dorothy Stringer students will be limited.” This is not an accurate summary of what was stated in the LAT’s objection. This document made clear that under the timetable submitted by the school as part of the application, Stringer’s pupils will not be permitted to use the pitch during morning breaktime, as maintenance will be carried out at this time throughout the week. Furthermore, during the lunch hour, the use of the pitch is given over to primary school use and school clubs. Pupils will therefore have less opportunity to play on this land than is presently the case. That is the key point.

6. Factual misleading statements in the Design and Access statement. It is claimed that the school is a ‘specialist Sports College” – untrue. There are no specialist Sports Colleges. More seriously perhaps, the school is claiming that it has an OFSTED rating of ‘Outstanding’ – also untrue: Ofsted’s latest visit to the school (4-5th December 2013) resulted in the school’s rating being downgraded to ‘good’. This was in the public domain well before the Design & Access statement was written nearly three months later.

7. The major stakeholder was not consulted. The private company known as BISS Ltd. that operates throughout the year within Dorothy Stringer School has a website promising afternoon activities for its students, including in-school activities such as football. There is no mention of this limited company anywhere in the planning documentation, and clearly, changes to the school grounds and their usage could have a major impact on this thriving local enterprise, which brings thousands of additional pupils to the school throughout the entire year (using the school’s facilities for longer on a daily basis through the year than the school itself). BISS takes advantage of the publicly funded facilities of this heavily oversubscribed school for its students both in school time and also during out-of-school hours, and its activities will therefore be significantly and potentially adversely impacted by this proposed development.

It appears that things have not been well-handled, at the very least by the Council. This was a follow-up statement that the Local Action Team sent round yesterday, in response to the Planning Officer’s report. My question though is why is there is a private school operating WITHIN Stringer in school hours, using their facilities when we can't our children in, because the Council say it's full??? Who is benefitting from this?
1. Information withheld until after the comment period has elapsed. The Design & Access statement, which is clearly a key document, is dated 28th February 2014, and presumably has been in the Applicant’s possession since early March – ie for over two months. However, it has not been posted on the planning website until 6th May – just six working days before this application is scheduled to be heard. This is totally unacceptable, denying local residents the opportunity to study this document and have their views taken into account. Design and access are key areas of concern to local people living near the site.
2. Further unacceptably late submission of documents. Three other documents relating to the noise issue were also not posted until this very late stage as well. This is a major planning application.
3. Failure to carry out surveys over the course of two years. The Applicant states that they have been working on this proposal for two years, and make much of their eco-credentials. Yet they have still not provided satisfactory surveys. The East Sussex County Ecologist once again states: “The level of ecological surveys submitted is not sufficient to inform mitigation, compensation and enhancement. A further biodiversity report is required to assess the likely impacts of the scheme.”
5. Misinterpretation of key information submitted in objections. “The use of the pitch by Dorothy Stringer students will be limited.” This is not an accurate summary of what was stated in the LAT’s objection. This document made clear that under the timetable submitted by the school as part of the application, Stringer’s pupils will not be permitted to use the pitch during morning breaktime, as maintenance will be carried out at this time throughout the week. Furthermore, during the lunch hour, the use of the pitch is given over to primary school use and school clubs. Pupils will therefore have less opportunity to play on this land than is presently the case. That is the key point.
6. Factual misleading statements in the Design and Access statement. It is claimed that the school is a ‘specialist Sports College” – untrue. There are no specialist Sports Colleges. More seriously perhaps, the school is claiming that it has an OFSTED rating of ‘Outstanding’ – also untrue: Ofsted’s latest visit to the school (4-5th December 2013) resulted in the school’s rating being downgraded to ‘good’. This was in the public domain well before the Design & Access statement was written nearly three months later.
7. The major stakeholder was not consulted. The private company known as BISS Ltd. that operates throughout the year within Dorothy Stringer School has a website promising afternoon activities for its students, including in-school activities such as football. There is no mention of this limited company anywhere in the planning documentation, and clearly, changes to the school grounds and their usage could have a major impact on this thriving local enterprise, which brings thousands of additional pupils to the school throughout the entire year (using the school’s facilities for longer on a daily basis through the year than the school itself). BISS takes advantage of the publicly funded facilities of this heavily oversubscribed school for its students both in school time and also during out-of-school hours, and its activities will therefore be significantly and potentially adversely impacted by this proposed development.fredflintstone1

tykemison wrote:
This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.

NIMBY?

[quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote:
This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.[/p][/quote]NIMBY?mrpurplestorm

tykemison wrote: This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.

NIMBY?

Nope, just this a ridiculous farce as freddie so articulately put it in his excellent post.They have sold their sinister souls to the highest bidder, money, money, money is all these greedy cretins care about.

[quote][p][bold]mrpurplestorm[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote: This is an absolute disgrace and how the hell this was forced through can only be described as corrupt, there needs to be an enquiry into the criminal councillors who have been paid off to vote for this disgusting decision, filth.[/p][/quote]NIMBY?[/p][/quote]Nope, just this a ridiculous farce as freddie so articulately put it in his excellent post.They have sold their sinister souls to the highest bidder, money, money, money is all these greedy cretins care about.tykemison